Showing 1 – 50 of 68 results.
Curated
National Mortality Followback Survey, 1993 (ICPSR 2900)
Released/updated on: 2005-02-21
Geographic coverage: United States
The National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) Program, begun in the 1960s by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), uses a sample of United States residents who die in a given year, supplementing information derived from the death certificate with information from the next of kin or another person familiar with the decedent's life history. This information, sometimes enhanced by administrative records, is collected in order to study the etiology of disease, demographic trends in mortality, and other health issues. The 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) sampled individuals aged 15 years and over who died in 1993. Forty-nine of the 50 state vital registration areas, as well as the independent vital registration areas of the District of Columbia and New York City, granted approval to sample their death certificates. (South Dakota declined to participate due to a state law restricting the use of death certificate information.) A sample of 22,957 death certificates from 1993 was then drawn. To obtain reliable numbers for important population subgroups, such as persons under age 35, women, and the Black population, death certificates from those subgroups were oversampled. The 1993 NMFS survey focused on five subject areas: (1) socioeconomic differentials in mortality, (2) associations between risk factors and cause of death (use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, firearms, motor vehicles), (3) disability (medical condition and cognitive functioning during the last year of life), (4) access and utilization of health care facilities during the last year of life (number of doctor visits, days bedridden, nursing home experiences, use of assistive medical devices, availability of health insurance), and (5) reliability of certain items reported on the death certificate. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, marital status, birthplace, education, occupation and industry, and income and assets. The 1993 NMFS survey differed from the previous mortality followback surveys in several ways: First, it emphasized deaths due to homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury. Second, the subject areas were considerably broader (many previously-surveyed subject areas, however, are included for trend analysis). This survey was also the first to acquire national-level information from medical examiners and coroners. Finally, the complexity of the questionnaire necessitated telephone or in-person interviews. The 1993 NMFS was designed in collaboration with other agencies of the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Curated
Examination of Crime Guns and Homicide in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1987-1998 (ICPSR 2895)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.
Curated
Evaluation of Pre-Trial Settlement Conference: Dade County, Florida, Criminal Court, 1979 (ICPSR 7710)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
This study reports on the implementation in Dade County, Florida, of a proposal to involve, on a voluntary basis, victims, defendants, and police in a judicial plea negotiation conference. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Parts 1-3, Defendants, Victims, and Police files, consist of responses to questionnaires given to defendants, victims, and police. The questionnaires were administered during 20-minute interviews, conducted after the case had been completed. The interview instruments were designed to collect data on three major issues: (1) the extent to which respondents reported participation in the processing of their cases, (2) respondents' knowledge of the way their cases were processed, and (3) respondents' attitudes toward the disposition of their cases and toward the criminal justice system. Part 4 is the Conference Data File. During the pretrial settlement conference, an observer wrote down in sequence as much as possible of the verbal behavior. After the session, the observer made some subjective ratings, provided descriptive data about the conclusion of the session, and classified comments into one of the following categories: (1) Facts of the Case, (2) Prior Record, (3) Law and Practices, (4) Maximum Sentence, (5) Prediction of Trial Outcome, (6) Conference Precedent, (7) Personal Background History, and (8) Recommendations. Information in Part 5, the Case Information Data File, was drawn from court records and includes type of case, number of charges, sentence type, sentence severity (stated and perceived), seriousness of offense, date of arrest, date of arraignment, date of conference, prior incarcerations, and defendant background.
Curated
Criminal Victimization Among Women in Cleveland, Ohio: Impact on Health Status and Medical Service Usage, 1986 (ICPSR 9920)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
The impact of criminal victimization on the health status of women is the focus of this data collection. The researchers examined the extent to which victimized women differed from nonvictimized women in terms of their physical and psychological well-being and differences in their use of medical services. The sample was drawn from female members of a health maintenance plan at a worksite in Cleveland, Ohio. Questions used to measure criminal victimization were taken from the National Crime Survey and focused on purse snatching, home burglary, attempted robbery, robbery with force, threatened assault, and assault. In addition, specific questions concerning rape and attempted rape were developed for the study. Health status was assessed by using a number of instruments, including the Cornell Medical Index, the Mental Health Index, and the RAND Corporation test battery for their Health Insurance Experiment. Medical service usage was assessed by reference to medical records. Demographic information includes age, race, income, and education.
Curated
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 1994: [United States] (ICPSR 2756)
Released/updated on: 2014-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) survey is designed to capture data on emergency department (ED) episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug. For purposes of this collection, a drug "episode" is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients aged six years and older. A drug "mention" refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to four drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes in the data. Individual persons may also be included more than once in the data. Within each facility participating in DAWN, a designated reporter, usually a member of the emergency department or medical records staff, was responsible for identifying drug-related episodes and recording and submitting data on each case. An episode report was submitted for each patient visiting a DAWN emergency department whose presenting problem(s) was/were related to their own drug use. DAWN produces estimates of drug-related emergency department visits for 50 specific drugs, drug categories, or combinations of drugs, including the following: acetaminophen, alcohol in combination with other drugs, alprazolam, amitriptyline, amphetamines, aspirin, cocaine, codeine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, heroin/morphine, inhalants/solvents/aerosols, LSD, lorazepam, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine, and PCP/PCP in combination with other drugs. The use of alcohol alone is not reported. The route of administration and form of drug used (e.g., powder, tablet, liquid) are included for each drug. Data collected for DAWN also include drug use motive and total drug mentions in the episode, as well as race, age, patient disposition, reason for ED visit, and day of the week, quarter, and year of episode.
Curated
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 1997: [United States] (ICPSR 2834)
Released/updated on: 2014-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) survey is designed to capture data on emergency department (ED) episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug. For purposes of this collection, a drug "episode" is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients aged six years and older. A drug "mention" refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to four drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes in the data. Individual persons may also be included more than once in the data. Within each facility participating in DAWN, a designated reporter, usually a member of the emergency department or medical records staff, was responsible for identifying drug-related episodes and recording and submitting data on each case. An episode report was submitted for each patient visiting a DAWN emergency department whose presenting problem(s) was/were related to their own drug use. DAWN produces estimates of drug-related emergency department visits for 50 specific drugs, drug categories, or combinations of drugs, including the following: acetaminophen, alcohol in combination with other drugs, alprazolam, amitriptyline, amphetamines, aspirin, cocaine, codeine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, heroin/morphine, inhalants/solvents/aerosols, LSD, lorazepam, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine, and PCP/PCP in combination with other drugs. The use of alcohol alone is not reported. The route of administration and form of drug used (e.g., powder, tablet, liquid) are included for each drug. Data collected for DAWN also include drug use motive and total drug mentions in the episode, as well as race, age, patient disposition, reason for ED visit, and day of the week, quarter, and year of episode.
Curated
Use of Force by the Montgomery County, Maryland Police Department, 1993-1999 (ICPSR 3793)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Maryland
Time period: 1993-01-01--1999-12-01
This study was designed to describe the types and amount of force used by and against the police in Montgomery County, Maryland, for the seven years between January 1993 and December 1999. The researchers collected data from the Montgomery County Police Department's Use of Force Reports and arrest records for this time period. Part 1 contains data obtained from the Use of Force Reports, including information about the characteristics of the force used, injuries and medical treatment, characteristics of the officer and citizen involved, and the time and date of the incident. Part 2 contains data from the arrest records, including variables for location, time, and date of the arrest, the most serious charge, and demographic characteristics of the officer and arrestee. Part 3 contains aggregate data, including rate of force by different arrest characteristics, that were derived from the data in Parts 1 and 2.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context of Adult Drug Courts in Four Jurisdictions in the United States, 1997-2002 (ICPSR 3922)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas City (Missouri), California, Bakersfield
This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California, Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July 2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys of 54 treatment service staff members.
Curated
Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3541)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.
Curated
Evaluating the Effects of Fatigue on Police Patrol Officers in Lowell, Massachusetts, Polk County, Florida, Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2974)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Portland (Oregon), Florida, Virginia
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to assess the connections between administratively controllable sources of fatigue among police patrol officers and problems such as diminished performance, accidents, and illness. The study sought to answer: (1) What is the prevalence of officer fatigue, and what are officers' attitudes toward it? (2) What are the causes or correlates of officer fatigue? (3) How does fatigue affect officer safety, health, and job performance? and (4) Can officer fatigue be measured objectively? The final sample was comprised of all sworn, nonsupervisory police officers assigned full-time to patrol and/or community policing functions on the day that data collection began at each of four selected sites: Lowell, Massachusetts, Polk County, Florida, Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia. Part 1, Fatigue Survey Data, includes demographic data and officers' responses from the initial self-report survey. Variables include the extent to which the respondent felt hot or cold, experienced uncomfortable breathing, bad dreams, or pain while sleeping, the time the respondent usually went to bed, number of hours slept each night, quality of sleep, whether medicine was taken as a sleep aid, estimated hours worked in a one-, two-, seven-, and thirty-day period, how overtime affected income, family relationships, and social activities, and reasons for feeling tired. Part 2, Demographic and Fatigue Survey Data, is comprised of data obtained from administrative records and demographic data forms. Several measures from the initial self-report survey are also included in Part 2. Variables focus on respondents' age, sex, race, marital status, global score on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scale, total years as a police officer assigned to any agency and current agency, and total years worked in current shift. Data for Part 3, FIT and Administrative Data, were obtained from administrative records and from the fitness-for-duty (FIT) workplace screener test. Variables include a pupilometry index score and the dates, time, and particular shift (days, evenings, or midnight) the officer started working when the pupilometry test was administered. Part 3 also includes the number of hours worked by the officer in a regular shift or in association with overtime, the number of sick leave hours taken by the officer, and whether the officer was involved in an on-duty accident, injured on duty, or commended by his/her department during a particular shift.
Curated
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Partially restricted
Portland [Oregon] Domestic Violence Experiment, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3353)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Portland (Oregon)
As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews, conducted approximately six months after the study case victimization occurred. Variables in Part 11 and Part 12 cover the victim's experience six months before the study case arrest and six months after the study case arrest. Demographic variables in both files include victim's and batterer's race and ethnicity, employment, and income, and relationship status between victim and batterer. Information on childhood experiences includes whether the victim and batterer felt emotionally cared for by parents, whether the victim and batterer witnessed violence between parents while growing up, and whether the victim and batterer were abused as children by a family member. Variables on the batterer's abusive behaviors include whether the batterer threatened to kill, swore at, pushed or grabbed, slapped, beat, or forced the victim to have sex. Information on the results of the abuse includes whether the abuse led to cuts or bruises, broken bones, burns, internal injury, or damage to eyes or ears. Information was also collected on whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the abuse events. Variables on victims' actions after the event include whether the victim saw a doctor, whether the victim talked to a minister, a family member, a friend, a mental health professional, or a district attorney, whether the victim tried to get an arrest warrant, went to a shelter to talk, and/or stayed at a shelter, whether the victim asked police to intervene, tried to get a restraining order, talked to an attorney, or undertook other actions, and whether the event led to the batterer's arrest. Variables on victim satisfaction with the police and the DVRU include whether police or the DVRU were able to calm things down, recommended going to the district attorney, informed the victim of her legal rights, recommended that the victim contact shelter or support groups, transported the victim to a hospital, and listened to the victim, whether police treated the victim with respect, and whether the victim would want police or the DVRU involved in the future if needed. Variables on the victim's emotional state include whether the victim was confident that she could keep herself safe, felt her family life was under control, and felt she was doing all she could to get help. Other variables include number of children the victim had and their ages, and whether the children had seen violence between the victim and batterer.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Curated
Improving Correctional Classification, New York, 1981-1983 (ICPSR 8437)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Time period: 1981-01-01--1983-01-01
There were three specific goals of this research. The first was to evaluate three procedures currently available for the classification of correctional inmates: the Risk Analysis method, Megargee's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Typology, and Toch's Prison Preference Inventory. Second, the research devised and tested a postdictive model of adjustment to prison life. Third, a new classification scheme was developed for predicting inmate adjustment to prison life that considers individual and organizational (contextual) factors and various interactions between the two. These data were collected from a sample of 942 volunteer inmates from ten New York state correctional facilities, five of which were maximum security and five of which were medium security facilities. Only one-half of the original 942 inmates completed the MMPI. Background and questionnaire data were collected during the summer and fall of 1983. Outcome data on each inmate infraction were collected for a three-year period prior to that time. Each case in Part 1, Merged Survey Response File [PPQ, PEI, PAQ], represents survey response data from an individual inmate, with variables from the Prison Preference Questionnaire (PPQ), the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI), and the Prison Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ). Cases in Part 2, Medical Records, are records of medical contacts and diagnoses of inmates' illnesses. Part 3, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, contains personality assessment information and scores for each individual offender. Data in Part 4, Sample Data [Background Characteristics], consist of individual-based variables covering inmates' background characteristics. Part 5, Offenses and Disciplinary Action Records, contains records of offenses and disciplinary action by individual offender. The client number is unique and consistent across all data files.
Curated
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS), 1992: Drug Use Among DC Women Delivering Live Births in DC Hospitals (ICPSR 2347)
Released/updated on: 2008-12-15
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
The Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DC*MADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys.
The DC*MADS: Drug Use Among Women Delivering Livebirths in DC Hospitals was designed to examine the nature and extent of drug use among women delivering live births in eight Washington, DC, hospitals participating in the study. Data from the questionnaires include prenatal care, health problems during pregnancy, pregnancy drug use history, needle use, polysubstance use, patterns of use, respondent's general experiences with drug use, including perceptions of the risks and consequences of use, occurrence of psychological and emotional problems, income and insurance coverage, treatment experiences, and maternal and infant outcomes. Medical records were abstracted from the women and their infants to document medical problems. Abstracted data on the mothers included demographics, discharge diagnoses, disposition at discharge, and results of urine screens. Abstracted data on infants included delivery information, status at discharge, discharge diagnoses/procedures, and first urine toxicology screen results.
Curated
Domestic Violence Experiment in King's County (Brooklyn), New York, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 4307)
Released/updated on: 2006-08-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-02-01--1997-09-01
The researchers sought to add to the incipient literature on randomized studies of batterer treatment, by conducting an experimental study that compared batterers assigned to treatment to batterers assigned to a community service program irrelevant to the problem of violence. The study was conducted using a true experimental design and consisted of 376 spousal assault cases drawn from the Kings County (New York) Criminal Court which were adjudicated between February 19, 1995, and March 1, 1996. Batterers were mandated to attend a 40-hour batterer treatment program or to complete 40 hours of community service. The random assignment was made at sentencing, after all parties (judge, prosecutor, and defense) had agreed that batterer treatment was appropriate, the defendant agreed to treatment and was accepted by the Alternatives to Violence (ATV) program, and the program was available based on the random assignment process. Interviews were also conducted with both the batterer and the victim at sentencing as well as 6 months post-sentence and 12 months post-sentence. These interviews collected data in areas regarding demographics (first interview only), recidivism, beliefs about domestic violence, conflict management strategies, locus of control, and for victims, self esteem. Administrative records were also used to obtain data regarding any new crimes committed.
Curated
Intensive Community Supervision in Minnesota, 1990-1992: A Dual Experiment in Prison Diversion and Enhanced Supervised Release (ICPSR 6849)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1990-01-01--1992-01-01
For this program evaluation, which utilized a randomized field experiment, two separate substudies were conducted: one investigated the "front door" Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) program that diverted prisoners into the community at the beginning of their prison terms, and the other studied the "back door" Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) program that provided enhanced supervision services for offenders who were just finishing their terms of confinement and had a residential mandate upon release from prison. The random assignment procedure began in October 1990 and continued until June 1992. Prison caseworkers in the Office of Adult Release (OAR) within the Minnesota Department of Corrections screened offenders for participation in the prison diversion program (ICS) according to established criteria. The RAND coordinator assigned offenders to the experimental program or to the control program (prison) by consulting a predetermined random list of assignments. For the ISR program, institutional caseworkers reviewed the treatment plans for offenders who were scheduled to be released from prison within the next six months. The same procedure for random assignment was used as in the ICS study. The final sample sizes were 124 in the ICS program and 176 in the ISR program. Parts 1 and 9, Background Data, include demographic information such as sex, race, education, marital status, number of dependents, and living arrangement at time of most recent arrest. Also included is information on the offender's prior employment history, drug use prior to drug treatment, status after random assignment, various probation/parole/release conditions ordered, and criminal record information for prior arrests, for the governing offense and for the offense immediately prior to the current prison admission. Each offender was also rated on various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. The 6-month, 12-month, and 13-month review data (Parts 2-4 and 10-12) record the same information for each month. Variables provide information on the current status of the offender, days under regular supervision, intensive community supervision, special services, electronic surveillance, detention or incarceration (jail or prison), and days on other status. Information was also recorded for each month during the review regarding number and type of face-to-face contacts, number and type of phone contacts, number of drug tests taken, number and type of monitoring checks performed, number and type of sessions in counseling, number of days job hunting or in training, hours of community service, number of days employed and amount of earnings, amount of fines and court costs paid, amount of victim restitution paid, and amount of probation fees paid. Because a large percentage of the ICS control offenders were expected to remain in prison during a 12-month follow-up (resulting in premature recidivism outcomes), recidivism data for all ICS offenders were collected for a period of 24 months after assignment to the study (Part 5). Part 5 contains up to three status codes and number of days at each status for months 1-25 for the ICS cases only. Also included is information on work release, violations of supervision, absconding, returns to jail, returns to prison, and other releases. Parts 6 and 13 provide drug violation data, including first and second type of drug, action taken, and number of days since random assignment. Parts 7 and 14 provide technical violation data, including technical violation, first, second, and third action taken, days from assignment to each action, and most serious action taken. Finally, Parts 8 and 15 provide arrest data, including arrest code, age at arrest, if convicted, conviction code, type of sentence, and age at disposition. Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files for purposes of time-at-risk analysis.
Curated
Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, 1986-1987: [United States] (ICPSR 8973)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
These data provide information on the population and characteristics of public and private juvenile facilities in operation in the United States on February 2, 1987. Annual data for the 1986 calendar year are included as well. Questions designed to categorize each facility were asked concerning the number of adults held, the juvenile majority's custodial authority, reason for custody, and access to the community, as well as the facility's security arrangements, capacity, age, plans for renovation, type of administration, and setting. Extensive data on the total juvenile residential population of each facility was also gathered. The total population is broken down by admission type, legal status, type of offense, race, and age. The collection also contains information on the population's movement and average length of stay, as well as each facility's average daily population, number and types of personnel, educational, treatment, and medical programs available, annual expenditures, court orders and consent decrees, and availability of juvenile records.
Curated
Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, 1988-1989: [United States] (ICPSR 9445)
Released/updated on: 2007-10-19
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1988-01-01--1989-01-01
These data provide information on the population and characteristics of public and private juvenile facilities in operation in the United States on February 15, 1989. Annual data for the 1988 calendar year are included as well. Questions designed to categorize each facility were asked concerning the number of adults held, the juvenile majority's custodial authority, reason for custody, and access to the community, as well as the facility's security arrangements, capacity, age, plans for renovation, type of administration, and setting. Extensive data on the total juvenile residential population of each facility was also gathered. The total population is broken down by admission type, legal status, type of offense, race, and age. The collection also contains information on the population's movement and average length of stay, as well as each facility's average daily population, number and types of personnel, educational, treatment, and medical programs available, annual expenditures, court orders and consent decrees, number of juvenile deaths that year, and availability of juvenile records.
Curated
Nature and Patterns of Homicide in Eight American Cities, 1978 (ICPSR 8936)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Tennessee, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Newark, Memphis, Dallas, St. Louis, Philadelphia
This dataset contains detailed information on homicides in eight United States cities: Philadelphia, Newark, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Dallas, Oakland, and "Ashton" (a representative large western city). Detailed characteristics for each homicide victim include time and date of homicide, age, gender, race, place of birth, marital status, living arrangement, occupation, socioeconomic status (SES), employment status, method of assault, location where homicide occurred, relationship of victim to offender, circumstances surrounding death, precipitation or resistance of victim, physical evidence collected, victim's drug history, victim's prior criminal record, and number of offenders identified. Data on up to two offenders and three witnesses are also available and include the criminal history, justice system disposition, and age, sex, and race of each offender. Information on the age, sex, and race of each witness also was collected, as were data on witness type (police informant, child, eyewitness, etc.). Finally, information from the medical examiner's records including results of narcotics and blood alcohol tests of the victim are provided.
Curated
California Vital Statistics and Homicide Data, 1990-1999 (ICPSR 3482)
Released/updated on: 2006-02-17
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1990-01-01--1999-01-01
This data collection resulted from the project "Linked Homicide File for 1990-1999," which was conducted by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, for the purpose of studying homicide and providing evidence for the development of strategies to reduce homicide in California. The researchers combined the strengths of law enforcement reporting and medical reporting in one dataset. The homicide data contain information on victims and circumstances of the 34,542 homicides investigated by law enforcement agencies in California for the period 1990 to 1999. The data are Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are received monthly by the Department of Justice from all local California law enforcement agencies as part of the national Uniform Crime Reporting program (UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS [UNITED STATES]: SUPPLEMENTARY HOMICIDE REPORTS, 1976-1999 [ICPSR 3180]). The researchers linked the SHRs to the CDHS vital statistics mortality data, which contain the death records provided by the medical examiner or coroner of each county after investigation of the death. Variables include total number of offenders involved, weapon used in the homicide, county of the victim's residence, location and date of the incident, date of death, cause of death, date of arrest for the suspect, and whether supplemental homicide report matched the death record. Demographic data include age, sex, and race of the victim and the suspect, relationships between the suspect and the victim, and the victim's marital status.
Curated
Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 2853)
Released/updated on: 2000-12-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug testing records, case records, and various other administrative records for all defendants assigned to any of the three dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing information were collected from computer files maintained by the Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative records included drug test results, eligibility date for the defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or another correctional facility for any offense and the length of sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g., electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs, or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically, whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation, outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison, jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type, whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession, driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house, apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had, whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the respondent was required to participate in a mental health services program, vocational training program, educational program, or community service program.
The following results may be significantly less relevant compared to results above.
Curated
Home Safety Project, 1987-1992: [Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio] (ICPSR 6898)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Tennessee, Ohio, Washington
Time period: 1987-01-01--1992-01-01
The Home Safety Project was a population-based case control study of homicide in the home with control households matched to cases by victim age range, race, gender, and neighborhood (a proxy for socioeconomic status). The study was conducted in the following locations: Shelby County, Tennessee (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), King County, Washington (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (January 1, 1990-August 23, 1992). The purpose of the data collection was to study risk and protective factors for homicide in the home and to identify individual and household factors associated with homicide (both behavioral and environmental). Respondents were asked a series of questions related to alcohol consumption, such as whether drinking ever created problems between household members, whether any household members had had trouble at work because of drinking, whether any physical fights or other violence had occurred in the home or outside the home due to drinking, and whether any injuries or hospital stays had resulted from drinking/fighting episodes. Additional queries covered whether any adult in the household had ever been arrested for any reason, whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs, and, if so, which ones. Questions on home safety features included whether the home had a burglar alarm, bars on the windows, exterior door deadbolt, security door, dogs, and any restricted access to the residence. Items on gun ownership covered whether there were any guns in the home and, if so, what type. Information also was elicited on the homicide that had taken place in the home, including whether the suspect was intimate with the victim, whether there was evidence of forced entry or entry without consent, whether the victim attempted to resist, and the respondent's assumption of the method of death as well as the medical examiner's determination. Demographic information includes victims' age, sex, and race, and respondents' age and sex. The unit of analysis is individual cases of homicide.
Curated
Evaluating Alternative Police Responses to Spouse Assault in Colorado Springs: an Enhanced Replication of the Minneapolis Experiment, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9982)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1987-03-01--1989-04-01
The purpose of this study was to replicate an experiment in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) testing alternative police response to cases of spouse assault, using a larger number of subjects and a more complex research design. The study focused on how police response affected subsequent incidents of spouse assault. Police responses studied included arrest, issuing emergency protection orders, referring the suspect to counseling, separating the suspect and the victim, and restoring order only (no specific action). Data were obtained through initial incident reports, counseling information, and personal interviews. Follow-up interviews were conducted at three- and six-month periods, and recidivists were identified through police and court record checks. Variables from initial incident reports include number of charges, date, location, and disposition of charges, weapon(s) used, victim injuries, medical attention received, behavior towards police, victim and suspect comments, and demographic information such as race, sex, relationship to victim/offender, age, and past victim/offender history. Data collected from counseling forms provide information on demographic characteristics of the suspect, type of counseling, topics covered in counseling, suspect's level of participation, and therapist comments. Court records investigate victim and suspect criminal histories, including descriptions of charges and their disposition, conditions of pretrial release, and the victim's contact with pretrial services. Other variables included in follow-up checks focus on criminal and offense history of the suspect. The data collection includes separate data files for the original, second, and final versions of some of the forms that were used.
Curated
Partially restricted
Database for Forensic Anthropology in the United States, 1962-1991 (ICPSR 2581)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1962-01-01--1991-01-01
This project was undertaken to establish a computerized skeletal database composed of recent forensic cases to represent the present ethnic diversity and demographic structure of the United States population. The intent was to accumulate a forensic skeletal sample large and diverse enough to reflect different socioeconomic groups of the general population from different geographical regions of the country in order to enable researchers to revise the standards being used for forensic skeletal identification. The database is composed of eight data files, comprising four categories. The primary "biographical" or "identification" files (Part 1, Demographic Data, and Part 2, Geographic and Death Data) comprise the first category of information and pertain to the positive identification of each of the 1,514 data records in the database. Information in Part 1 includes sex, ethnic group affiliation, birth date, age at death, height (living and cadaver), and weight (living and cadaver). Variables in Part 2 pertain to the nature of the remains, means and sources of identification, city and state/country born, occupation, date missing/last seen, date of discovery, date of death, time since death, cause of death, manner of death, deposit/exposure of body, area found, city, county, and state/country found, handedness, and blood type. The Medical History File (Part 3) represents the second category of information and contains data on the documented medical history of the individual. Variables in Part 3 include general comments on medical history as well as comments on congenital malformations, dental notes, bone lesions, perimortem trauma, and other comments. The third category consists of an inventory file (Part 4, Skeletal Inventory Data) in which data pertaining to the specific contents of the database are maintained. This includes the inventory of skeletal material by element and side (left and right), indicating the condition of the bone as either partial or complete. The variables in Part 4 provide a skeletal inventory of the cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcranium elements and identify the element as complete, fragmentary, or absent. If absent, four categories record why it is missing. The last part of the database is composed of three skeletal data files, covering quantitative observations of age-related changes in the skeleton (Part 5), cranial measurements (Part 6), and postcranial measurements (Part 7). Variables in Part 5 provide assessments of epiphyseal closure and cranial suture closure (left and right), rib end changes (left and right), Todd Pubic Symphysis, Suchey-Brooks Pubic Symphysis, McKern & Steward--Phases I, II, and III, Gilbert & McKern--Phases I, II, and III, auricular surface, and dorsal pubic pitting (all for left and right). Variables in Part 6 include cranial measurements (length, breadth, height) and mandibular measurements (height, thickness, diameter, breadth, length, and angle) of various skeletal elements. Part 7 provides postcranial measurements (length, diameter, breadth, circumference, and left and right, where appropriate) of the clavicle, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, scarum, innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and calcaneus. A small file of noted problems for a few cases is also included (Part 8).
Curated
Chicago Women's Health Risk Study, 1995-1998 (ICPSR 3002)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1995-01-01--1998-01-01
The goal of the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) was to develop a reliable and validated profile of risk factors directly related to lethal or life-threatening outcomes in intimate partner violence, for use in agencies and organizations working to help women in abusive relationships. Data were collected to draw comparisons between abused women in situations resulting in fatal outcomes and those without fatal outcomes, as well as a baseline comparison of abused women and non-abused women, taking into account the interaction of events, circumstances, and interventions occurring over the course of a year or two. The CWHRS used a quasi-experimental design to gather survey data on 705 women at the point of service for any kind of treatment (related to abuse or not) sought at one of four medical sites serving populations in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide (Chicago Women's Health Center, Cook County Hospital, Erie Family Health Center, and Roseland Public Health Center). Over 2,600 women were randomly screened in these settings, following strict protocols for safety and privacy. One goal of the design was that the sample would not systematically exclude high-risk but understudied populations, such as expectant mothers, women without regular sources of health care, and abused women in situations where the abuse is unknown to helping agencies. To accomplish this, the study used sensitive contact and interview procedures, developed sensitive instruments, and worked closely with each sample site. The CWHRS attempted to interview all women who answered "yes -- within the past year" to any of the three screening questions, and about 30 percent of women who did not answer yes, provided that the women were over age 17 and had been in an intimate relationship in the past year. In total, 705 women were interviewed, 497 of whom reported that they had experienced physical violence or a violent threat at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year (the abused, or AW, group). The remaining 208 women formed the comparison group (the non-abused, or NAW, group). Data from the initial interview sections comprise Parts 1-8. For some women, the AW versus NAW interview status was not the same as their screening status. When a woman told the interviewer that she had experienced violence or a violent threat in the past year, she and the interviewer completed a daily calendar history, including details of important events and each violent incident that had occurred the previous year. The study attempted to conduct one or two follow-up interviews over the following year with the 497 women categorized as AW. The follow-up rate was 66 percent. Data from this part of the clinic/hospital sample are found in Parts 9-12. In addition to the clinic/hospital sample, the CWHRS collected data on each of the 87 intimate partner homicides occurring in Chicago over a two-year period that involved at least one woman age 18 or older. Using the same interview schedule as for the clinic/hospital sample, CWHRS interviewers conducted personal interviews with one to three "proxy respondents" per case, people who were knowledgeable and credible sources of information about the couple and their relationship, and information was compiled from official or public records, such as court records, witness statements, and newspaper accounts (Parts 13-15). In homicides in which a woman was the homicide offender, attempts were made to contact and interview her. This "lethal" sample, all such homicides that took place in 1995 or 1996, was developed from two sources, HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399) and the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office. Part 1 includes demographic variables describing each respondent, such as age, race and ethnicity, level of education, employment status, screening status (AW or NAW), birthplace, and marital status. Variables in Part 2 include details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Variables in Part 3 deal with the woman's physical and mental health, including pregnancy, and with her social support network and material resources. Variables in Part 4 provide information on the number and type of firearms in the household, whether the woman had experienced power, control, stalking, or harassment at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, whether she had experienced specific types of violence or violent threats at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, and whether she had experienced symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the incidents in the past month. Variables in Part 5 specify the partner or partners who were responsible for the incidents in the past year, record the type and length of the woman's relationship with each of these partners, and provide detailed information on the one partner she chose to talk about (called "Name"). Variables in Part 6 probe the woman's help-seeking and interventions in the past year. Variables in Part 7 include questions comprising the Campbell Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1993). Part 8 assembles variables pertaining to the chosen abusive partner (Name). Part 9, an event-level file, includes the type and the date of each event the woman discussed in a 12-month retrospective calendar history. Part 10, an incident-level file, includes variables describing each violent incident or threat of violence. There is a unique identifier linking each woman to her set of events or incidents. Part 11 is a person-level file in which the incidents in Part 10 have been aggregated into totals for each woman. Variables in Part 11 include, for example, the total number of incidents during the year, the number of days before the interview that the most recent incident had occurred, and the severity of the most severe incident in the past year. Part 12 is a person-level file that summarizes incident information from the follow-up interviews, including the number of abuse incidents from the initial interview to the last follow-up, the number of days between the initial interview and the last follow-up, and the maximum severity of any follow-up incident. Parts 1-12 contain a unique identifier variable that allows users to link each respondent across files. Parts 13-15 contain data from official records sources and information supplied by proxies for victims of intimate partner homicides in 1995 and 1996 in Chicago. Part 13 contains information about the homicide incidents from the "lethal sample," along with outcomes of the court cases (if any) from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Variables for Part 13 include the number of victims killed in the incident, the month and year of the incident, the gender, race, and age of both the victim and offender, who initiated the violence, the severity of any other violence immediately preceding the death, if leaving the relationship triggered the final incident, whether either partner was invading the other's home at the time of the incident, whether jealousy or infidelity was an issue in the final incident, whether there was drug or alcohol use noted by witnesses, the predominant motive of the homicide, location of the homicide, relationship of victim to offender, type of weapon used, whether the offender committed suicide after the homicide, whether any criminal charges were filed, and the type of disposition and length of sentence for that charge. Parts 14 and 15 contain data collected using the proxy interview questionnaire (or the interview of the woman offender, if applicable). The questionnaire used for Part 14 was identical to the one used in the clinic sample, except for some extra questions about the homicide incident. The data include only those 76 cases for which at least one interview was conducted. Most variables in Part 14 pertain to the victim or the offender, regardless of gender (unless otherwise labeled). For ease of analysis, Part 15 includes the same 76 cases as Part 14, but the variables are organized from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide (for the same-sex cases, Part 15 is from the woman victim's point of view). Parts 14 and 15 can be linked by ID number. However, Part 14 includes five sets of variables that were asked only from the woman's perspective in the original questionnaire: household composition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), social support network, personal income (as opposed to household income), and help-seeking and intervention. To avoid redundancy, these variables appear only in Part 14. Other variables in Part 14 cover information about the person(s) interviewed, the victim's and offender's age, sex, race/ethnicity, birthplace, employment status at time of death, and level of education, a scale of the victim's and offender's severity of physical abuse in the year prior to the death, the length of the relationship between victim and offender, the number of children belonging to each partner, whether either partner tried to leave and/or asked the other to stay away, the reasons why each partner tried to leave, the longest amount of time each partner stayed away, whether either or both partners returned to the relationship before the death, any known physical or emotional problems sustained by victim or offender, including the four-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) scale of depression, drug and alcohol use of the victim and offender, number and type of guns in the household of the victim and offender, Scales of Power and Control (Johnson, 1996) or Stalking and Harassment (Sheridan, 1992) by either intimate partner in the year prior to the death, a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Johnson, 1996) measuring the type of physical violence experienced by either intimate partner, and the Campbell Danger Assessment for the victim and offender. In addition, Part 14 contains a number of summary variables about the fatal incident, most of which are also in Part 13. These include questions related to the circumstances of the incident, time, place, witnesses, who had initiated the violence, outcome for the offender (e.g., suicide or other death, arrest, sentence, etc.), and outcome for children and others who witnessed the violence or found the body. Part 15 contains the same data as Part 14, except that each variable is presented from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide. Additional summary variables were added regarding the overall nature of any prior physical abuse in the relationship, as well as the overall pattern of leaving and returning to the relationship in the year prior to the death.
Curated
Firearm Injury Surveillance Study, 1993-2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3018)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2000-01-01
These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries to monitor the incidence and characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2000. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.
Curated
Longitudinal Study of Violent Criminal Behavior in the United States, 1970-1984 (ICPSR 6103)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--1984-01-01
The primary objective of this project was to explore the familial, physical, psychological, social, and cultural antecedents and correlates of violent criminal offending. This research used an extensive longitudinal database collected on 1,345 young adult male offenders admitted to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Tallahassee, Florida, from November 3, 1970, to November 2, 1972. Using FBI arrest records ("rap sheets"), each inmate was classified on the basis of the National Crime Information Center Uniform Offense Codes into one of four distinct categories: (1) "angry violent," in which the apparent goal was to injure the victim, (2) "instrumentally violent," in which the aggressive behavior was a means to an end (as in a robbery), (3) "potentially violent," as evidenced by making threats or carrying weapons but in which the offender was not accused of any violent offenses, and (4) "nonviolent," in which the offender had not been charged with violent criminal behavior. Violent offenders were also subdivided into those who had been repetitively violent and those who had been charged with just one violent offense. As part of the classification process, each inmate was administered an extensive battery of tests by the research project staff. The two primary personality assessment instruments utilized were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Each inmate's caseworker filled out a series of of standard Bureau of Prisons forms recording the results of the medical, educational, and psychological evaluations, as well as salient aspects of the case and criminal history. The researchers also obtained copies of each offender's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) that had been prepared by the federal probation officer, and then devised a series of scales to quantify the PSI data. In addition, an hour-long structured intake interview was administered to each inmate by his team psychologist. Global scales were constructed from these intake interviews. After each interview, the psychologists performed an evaluative Q-sort. Nine scales were later constructed based on these Q-sorts. Also, every dormitory officer and every work supervisor completed scales assessing each subject's interpersonal adjustment and work performance at 90-day intervals. Immediately prior to release, as many inmates as possible were reinterviewed and retested on the MMPI and the CPI. Follow-ups using FBI rap sheets were conducted in 1976 and 1984. Variables obtained from the Bureau of Prisons forms include age upon entry, race, marital status, age at first arrest, number of prior adult convictions, commitment offense(s), highest school grade completed, drug dependency, and alcoholism. Scales developed from the PSIs provide data on father, mother, and siblings, family incohesiveness, adequacy of childhood dwelling, social deviance of family, school problems, employment problems, achievement motivation, problems with interpersonal relations, authority conflicts, childhood and adolescent or adult maladjustment and deviance, poor physical health, juvenile conviction record, adult arrest and conviction record, violence of offense, group influence on illegal behavior, and prior prison adjustment. The intake interview inquired about the developmental family history and the child's development, the inmate's marriage, educational, and work history and attitudes, attitudes toward sex, military service and attitudes, self-reported use of alcohol and other substances, religious preferences and practices, and problems during any previous confinements. Scales based on the psychologists' Q-sorts evaluated aggression, hostility avoidance, authority conflict, sociability, social withdrawal, social/emotional constriction, passivity, dominance, and adaptation to the environment. Data are also provided on global dorm adjustment and the number of shots, cell house days, sick calls, and infractions for the offenders' first and second 90-day periods at the FCI.
Curated
Partially restricted
Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women and Men in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 2566)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-11-01--1996-05-01
To further the understanding of violence against women, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly sponsored the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey. To provide a context in which to place women's experiences, the NVAW Survey sampled both women and men. Completed interviews were obtained from 8,000 women and 8,005 men who were 18 years of age or older residing in households throughout the United States. The female version of the survey was fielded from November 1995 to May 1996. The male version of the survey was fielded during February to May 1996. Spanish versions of both the male and female surveys were fielded from April to May 1996. Respondents to the NVAW Survey were queried about (1) their general fear of violence and the ways in which they managed their fears, (2) emotional abuse they had experienced by marital and cohabitating partners, (3) physical assault they had experienced as children by adult caretakers, (4) physical assault they had experienced as adults by any type of perpetrator, (5) forcible rape or stalking they had experienced by any type of perpetrator, and (6) incidents of threatened violence they had experienced by any type of perpetrator. Respondents disclosing victimization were asked detailed questions about the characteristics and consequences of victimization as they experienced it, including injuries sustained and use of medical services. Incidents were recorded that had occurred at any time during the respondent's lifetime and also those that occurred within the 12 months prior to the interview. Data were gathered on both male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner victimization as well as abuse by same-sex partners. Due to the sensitive nature of the survey, female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers. In order to test for possible bias caused by the gender of the interviewers when speaking to men, a split sample was used so that half of the male respondents had female interviewers and the other half had male interviewers. The questionnaires contained 14 sections, each covering a different topic, as follows. Section A: Respondents' fears of different types of violence, and behaviors they had adopted to accommodate those fears. Section B: Respondent demographics and household characteristics. Section C: The number of current and past marital and opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitating relationships of the respondent. Section D: Characteristics of the respondent's current relationship and the demographics and other characteristics of their spouse and/or partner. Section E: Power, control, and emotional abuse by each spouse or partner. Sections F through I: Screening for incidents of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively. Sections J through M: Detailed information on each incident of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively, reported by the respondent for each type of perpetrator identified in the victimization screening section. Section N: Violence in the respondent's current relationship, including steps taken because of violence in the relationship and whether the violent behavior had stopped. The section concluded with items to assess if the respondent had symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Other variables in the data include interviewer gender, respondent gender, number of adult women and adult men in the household, number of different telephones in the household, and region code.
Curated
Impact of Oleoresin Capsicum Spray on Respiratory Function in Human Subjects in the Sitting and Prone Maximal Restraint Positions in San Diego County, 1998 (ICPSR 2961)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Oleoresin capsicum (OC), or pepper spray, has gained wide acceptance as standard police equipment in law enforcement as a swift and effective method to subdue violent, dangerous suspects in the field. As a use-of-force method, however, OC spray has been alleged in the media to have been associated with a number of in-custody deaths. The goal of this study was to assess the safety of a commercially available OC spray in use by law enforcement agencies nationwide. The study was conducted as a randomized, cross-over, controlled trial on volunteer human subjects recruited from the local law enforcement training academy in San Diego County, California. Subjects participated in four different experimental trials in random order over two separate days in a pulmonary function testing laboratory: (a) placebo spray exposure followed by sitting position, (b) placebo spray exposure followed by restraint position, (c) OC spray exposure followed by sitting position, and (d) OC spray exposure followed by restraint position. Prior to participation, subjects completed a short questionnaire regarding their health status, history of lung disease and asthma, smoking history, medication use, and respiratory inhaler medication use. Prior to exposure, subjects also underwent a brief screening spirometry in the sitting position by means of a portable spirometry device to determine baseline pulmonary function. Subjects then placed their heads in a 5' x 3' x 3' exposure box that allowed their faces to be exposed to the spray. A one-second spray was delivered into the box from the end opposite the subject (approximately five feet away). Subjects remained in the box for five seconds after the spray was delivered. During this time, subjects underwent impedance monitoring to assess whether inhalation of the OC or placebo spray had occurred. After this exposure period, subjects were placed in either the sitting or prone maximal restraint position. Subjects remained in these positions for ten minutes. Repeat spirometric measurements were performed, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and pulse rate were recorded, and an arterial blood sample was drawn. A total of 34 subjects completed the study, comprising 128 separate analyzable study trials. Variables provided in all three parts of this collection include subject's age, gender, ethnicity, height, weight, body mass index, past medical history, tobacco use history, and history of medication use, as well as OC spray or placebo exposure and sitting or restraint position during the trial. Part 1 also includes tidal volume, respiratory rate, and heart rate at baseline and at 1, 5, 7, and 9 minutes, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure at baseline and at 3, 6, and 9 minutes. Additional variables in Part 2 include predicted forced vital capacity and predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and the same measures at baseline, 1.5 minutes, and 10 minutes. Derived variables include percent predicted and mean percent predicted values involving the above variables. Part 3 also provides end-tidal carbon dioxide and oxygenation levels, oxygen saturation, oxygen consumption at baseline and at 1, 5, 7, and 9 minutes, blood pH, partial pressure of oxygen, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide at 8 minutes.
Curated
Firearm Injury Surveillance Study, 1993-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 4595)
Released/updated on: 2006-11-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2004-01-01
These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries in order to monitor the incidents and the characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2004. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.
Curated
Firearm Injury Surveillance Study, 1993-2002: [United States] (ICPSR 4083)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2002-01-01
These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries to monitor the incidence and characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2002. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.
Curated
Firearm Injury Surveillance Study, 1993-2003 [United States] (ICPSR 4353)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2003-01-01
These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries in order to monitor the incidents and the characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2003. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.
Curated
Impact of Victimization in the Lives of Incarcerated Women in South Carolina, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 9418)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-05
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 2001-10-01--2002-08-01
This study examined victimization in the lives of incarcerated women, specifically victimization as a risk factor for crime, with particular emphasis on the direct and indirect ways in which the impact of victimization contributed to criminal involvement. Interviews were conducted with 60 women incarcerated in a maximum security state correctional facility in South Carolina from October 2001 to August 2002. Interview measures consisted of participant responses to loosely-structured open-ended prompts and addressed each woman's own perspective on psychological, physical, and sexual victimization within her life, as well as her history of family and peer relationships, alcohol and drug use, and criminal activity. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) provided demographic and criminal history information for each prospective participant, including participants, no-shows, and decliners (Part 1) and for the female prison population without the prospective participants (Part 2). These data were used for sampling decisions and provide descriptive information on sample characteristics. In addition the SCDC provided inmate data on offenses committed while in the SCDC (Part 3), disciplinary actions at the SCDC (Part 4), education through the SCDC (Part 5), and known prior offenses (Part 6). The project also conducted online searches in NewsLibrary for media reports concerning women who participated in the study. Variables include age, race, number of children, marital status, criminal offense history, correctional disciplinary records, probation/parole information, victim/witness notification, corrections program participation, intelligence scores, math and reading scores, basic academic history/degrees, mental health assessment, and special medical needs.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence in Alexandria, Virginia, 1990-1998 (ICPSR 2858)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Alexandria, Virginia
Time period: 1990-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate Alexandria, Virginia's Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), which is a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Specifically, the goals of the study were (1) to determine the effectiveness of DVIP, (2) to compare victims' perceptions of program satisfaction and other program elements between the Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Program and domestic violence victim support services in Virginia Beach, Virginia, (3) to examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abuse their victims, and (4) to report the findings of attitudinal surveys of the Alexandria police department regarding the mandatory arrest policy. Data were collected from four sources. The first two sources of data were surveys conducted via telephone interviews with females living in either Alexandria, Virginia (Part 1), or Virginia Beach, Virginia (Part 2), who were victims of domestic violence assault incidents in which the police had been contacted. These surveys were designed to describe the services that the women had received, their satisfaction with those services, and their experience with subsequent abuse. For Part 3 (Alexandria Repeat Offender Data), administrative records from the Alexandria Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) were examined in order to identify and examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abused their victims. The fourth source of data was a survey distributed to police officers in Alexandria (Part 4, Alexandria Police Officer Survey Data) and was developed to assess police officers' attitudes regarding the domestic violence arrest policy in Alexandria. In four rounds of interviews for Part 1 and three rounds of interviews for Part 2, victims answered questions regarding the location where the domestic violence incident occurred and if the police were involved, their perceptions of the helpfulness of the police, prosecutor, domestic violence programs, hotlines, and shelters, their relationship to the abuser, their living arrangements at the time of each interview, and whether a protective order was obtained. Also gathered was information on the types of abuse and injuries sustained by the victim, whether she sought medical care for the injuries, whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the incident(s), whether the victim had been physically abused or threatened, yelled at, had personal property destroyed, or was made to feel unsafe by the abuser, if any other programs or persons provided help to the victim and how helpful these additional services were, and whether a judge ordered services for the victim or abuser. After the initial interviews, in subsequent rounds victims were asked if they had had any contact with the abuser since the last interview, if they had experienced any major life changes, if their situation had improved or gotten worse and if so how, and what types of assistance or programs would have helped improve their situation. Demographic variables for Part 3 include offenders' race, sex, age at first criminal nondomestic violence charge, and age at first domestic violence charge. Other variables include charge number, type, initiator, disposition, and sentence of nondomestic violence charges, as well as the conditions of the sentences, imposed days, months, and years, effective days, months, and years, type of domestic violence case, victim's relationship to offender, victim's age, sex, and race, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, if children were present at the domestic violence incident, the assault method used by the offender, and the severity of the assault. For Part 4, police officers were asked whether they knew what a domestic violent incident was, whether arresting without a warrant was considered good policy, whether they were in favor of domestic violence policy as a police response, whether they thought domestic violence policy was an effective deterrent, whether officers should have discretion to arrest, and how much discretion was used to handle domestic violence calls. The number and percent of domestic violence arrests made in the previous year, percent of domestic violence calls that involved mutual combat, and the number of years each respondent worked with the Alexandria, Virginia, police department are included in the file. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the age and gender of each respondent.
Curated
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, 2000 (ICPSR 3582)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-07-01--2000-12-01
Beginning in July 2000, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) expanded the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to collect data on all types and causes of injuries treated in a representative sample of United States hospitals with emergency departments (EDs). This system is called the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS AIP).
The NEISS AIP is designed to provide national incidence estimates of all types and external causes of nonfatal injuries and poisonings treated in United States hospital EDs. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer-related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all injuries and poisonings. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal injuries in the United States, (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal injuries over time, (3) identify emerging injury problems, (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems, and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data are made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. Also, the final edited data are released annually on a public use data file for use by other public health professionals and researchers. NEISS-AIP data on nonfatal injuries were collected from January through December each year except the year 2000 when data were collected from July through December (ICPSR 3582).
NEISS AIP is providing data on approximately over 500,000 cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, gender, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, major categories of external cause of injury (e.g., motor vehicle, falls, cut/pierce, poisoning, fire/burn) and of intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, intentional self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding rules and guidelines. NEISS has been managed and operated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all United States residents. These product-related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1990, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS data on a variety of injury-related topics, such as in-line skating, firearms, BB and pellet guns, bicycles, boat propellers, personal water craft, and playground injuries; and (3) to address common concerns. CPSC also uses NEISS to collect data on work-related injuries for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. In 1997, the interagency agreement was modified to conduct the three-month NEISS All Injury Pilot Study at 21 NEISS hospitals (see Quinlan KP, Thompson MP, Annest JL, et al. Expanding the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to Monitor All Nonfatal Injuries Treated in US Hospital Emergency Departments. Annals Emerg. Med. 1999;34:637-643.) This study demonstrated the feasibility of expanding NEISS to collect data on all injuries. National estimates based on this study indicated product-related injuries that fall into CPSC's jurisdiction accounted for approximately 50 percent of injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The study also indicated that NEISS is a cost-effective system for capturing data on all injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP provides an excellent data source for monitoring national estimates of nonfatal injuries over time. Analysis and dissemination of these surveillance data through the ICPSR, and Internet publications will help support NCIPC's mission of reducing all types and causes of injuries in the United States, as well as assist other federal agencies with responsibilities for injury prevention and control.
Curated
National Crime Surveys: National Sample, 1973-1983 (ICPSR 7635)
Released/updated on: 1998-10-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--1983-01-01
The National Crime Survey (NCS), a study of personal and
household victimization, measures victimization for six selected
crimes, including attempts. The NCS was designed to achieve three
primary objectives: to develop detailed information about the victims
and consequences of crime, to estimate the number and types of crimes
not reported to police, and to provide uniform measures of selected
types of crime. The surveys cover the following types of crimes,
including attempts: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and
auto or motor vehicle theft. Crimes such as murder, kidnapping,
shoplifting, and gambling are not covered. Questions designed to
obtain data on the characteristics and circumstances of the
victimization were asked in each incident report. Items such as time
and place of occurrence, injuries suffered, medical expenses incurred,
number, age, race, and sex of offender(s), relationship of offender(s)
to victim (stranger, casual acquaintance, relative, etc.), and other
detailed data relevant to a complete description of the incident were
included. Legal and technical terms, such as assault and larceny, were
avoided during the interviews. Incidents were later classified in more
technical terms based upon the presence or absence of certain
elements. In addition, data were collected in the study to obtain
information on the victims' education, migration, labor force status,
occupation, and income. Full data for each year are contained in Parts
101-110. Incident-level extract files (Parts 1-10, 41) are available
to provide users with files that are easy to manipulate. The
incident-level datasets contain each incident record that appears in
the full sample file, the victim's person record, and the victim's
household information. These data include person and household
information for incidents only. Subsetted person-level files also are
available as Parts 50-79. All of the variables for victims are
repeated for a maximum of four incidents per victim. There is one
person-level subset file for each interview quarter of the complete
national sample from 1973 through the second interview quarter in
1980.
Curated
Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Response to Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3282)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.
Curated
Americans' Use of Time, 1985 (ICPSR 9875)
Released/updated on: 1997-11-18
Geographic coverage: United States
For this data collection, respondents were asked to record in single-day time diaries each activity they engaged in over a 24-hour period. The time diary data were gathered through three different data collection methods: mail-back, telephone, and personal interviews. Respondents were instructed to describe in the diaries when the activity began, the time the activity ended, where it occurred, and who was present when the activity took place. Demographic variables include household type, respondent's sex, marital status, age, educational level, occupation, and work hours, number of children in the household under 5 and 18 years of age, and household income. Other variables focus on total work time, total time for meals at work, total minutes at work engaged in nonwork activities, total work break in minutes, and total time traveling to and from work. Data are also provided on total time spent on meal preparation and cleanup, housecleaning, outdoor chores, laundry, ironing, clothes care, home repair, baby care, child care, shopping for food, and traveling to and from food shopping. Respondents also reported total time spent on personal care, medical care, family financial activities, and sleeping, as well as time spent attending school, classes, seminars, special interest group meetings, religious meetings, sports events, and other social activities.
Curated
Evaluation of the Impact of System-Wide Drug Testing in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1991-1992 (ICPSR 2589)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1991-01-01--1992-10-01
The Multnomah County Drug Testing and Evaluation (DTE) program was established to help clients rid themselves of drug abusing behavior. To that end, the DTE program provided random, weekly drug tests to all clients in the program. These urinalysis tests allowed DTE to monitor each client's compliance with release conditions and progress in treatment programs, and to intervene appropriately when a client showed signs of a drug abuse problem. The DTE program supplemented drug testing with client drug evaluations and treatment recommendations, which were provided to the client's probation officer or case manager. This study was a program evaluation of two of DTE's divisions: the Pretrial Release Supervision Program (PRSP) and the probation and parole program. The pretrial division was chosen because it was the first opportunity for the criminal justice system to supervise and control the drug use of potential DTE clients. The probation and parole program was selected for three reasons: it was the largest component of the DTE program, it linked the pretrial and post-sentence DTE programs, and the experience of this program could be readily applied to the development of other such programs in other jurisdictions. The programs were evaluated using administrative data collected by corrections technicians, case managers, probation and parole officers, and the DTE central office. Part 1 (Pretrial Data) variables include dates of entry into and exit from the program, number of drug tests, number of positive tests for various drugs, type of offense and arrest date for each offense, and need assessment rating for medical, employment, legal, family, psychological, and drug addiction problems. Part 2 (Probation and Parole Data) variables include a probation or parole indicator, prior drug arrests, prior non-drug arrests, prior convictions, technical violations, drug use, and new drug crimes committed during the program. Demographic variables for both files include age, race, and gender.
Curated
National Mortality Followback Survey, 1966-1968 (ICPSR 8370)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1966-01-01--1968-01-01
This survey was designed primarily to obtain information on the smoking habits of decedents by examining death certificates and questionnaires mailed to death record informants. Smoking variables in this data collection include number of cigarettes smoked when the decedent smoked most, number smoked the year before death, number smoked three years before death, and cigar and pipe smoking occurrence three years before death. Demographic variables include marital status, family type, number of children, living arrangements, size of family, birth and death of the decedent, family income and family debt, and cause of death.
Curated
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, 2004 (ICPSR 4598)
Released/updated on: 2006-11-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-12-01
Beginning in July 2000, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in collaboration with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), expanded the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to collect data on all types and causes of injuries treated in a representative sample of United States hospitals with emergency departments (ED). This system is called the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS AIP).
The NEISS AIP is designed to provide national incidence estimates of all types and external causes of nonfatal injuries and poisonings treated in United States hospital EDs. Data on injury-related visits are being obtained from a national sample of 66 out of 100 NEISS hospitals that were selected as a stratified probability sample of hospitals in the United States and its territories with a minimum of six beds and a 24-hour ED. The sample includes separate strata for very large, large, medium, and small hospitals, defined by the number of annual ED visits per hospital, and children's hospitals. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer-related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all injuries and poisonings. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal injuries in the United States, (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal injuries over time, (3) identify emerging injury problems, (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems, and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data will be made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. Also, annually, the final edited data are released as public use data files for use by other public health professionals and researchers. NEISS-AIP data on nonfatal injuries were collected from January through December each year except the year 2000 when data were collected from July through December (ICPSR 3582).
NEISS AIP is providing data on approximately over 500,000 cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, gender, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, major categories of external cause of injury (e.g., motor vehicle, falls, cut/pierce, poisoning, fire/burn) and of intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, intentional self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding rules and guidelines. NEISS has been managed and operated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all United States residents. These product-related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1990, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS data on a variety of injury-related topics, such as in-line skating, firearms, BB and pellet guns, bicycles, boat propellers, personal water craft, and playground injuries; and (3) to address common concerns. CPSC also uses NEISS to collect data on work-related injuries for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. In 1997, the interagency agreement was modified to conduct the three-month NEISS All Injury Pilot Study at 21 NEISS hospitals (see Quinlan KP, Thompson MP, Annest JL, et al. Expanding the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to Monitor All Nonfatal Injuries Treated in US Hospital Emergency Departments. Annals Emerg. Med. 1999;34:637-643.) This study demonstrated the feasibility of expanding NEISS to collect data on all injuries. National estimates based on this study indicated product-related injuries that fall into CPSC's jurisdiction accounted for approximately 50 percent of injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The study also indicated that NEISS is a cost-effective system for capturing data on all injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP provides an excellent data source for monitoring national estimates of nonfatal injuries over time. Analysis and dissemination of these surveillance data through the ICPSR, and Internet publications will help support NCIPC's mission of reducing all types and causes of injuries in the United States, as well as assist other federal agencies with responsibilities for injury prevention and control.
Curated
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, 2003 (ICPSR 4352)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-01
Beginning in July 2000, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in collaboration with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), expanded the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to collect data on all types and causes of injuries treated in a representative sample of United States hospitals with emergency departments (ED). This system is called the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS AIP).
The NEISS AIP is designed to provide national incidence estimates of all types and external causes of nonfatal injuries and poisonings treated in United States hospital EDs. Data on injury-related visits are being obtained from a national sample of 66 out of 100 NEISS hospitals that were selected as a stratified probability sample of hospitals in the United States and its territories with a minimum of six beds and a 24-hour ED. The sample includes separate strata for very large, large, medium, and small hospitals, defined by the number of annual ED visits per hospital, and children's hospitals. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer-related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all injuries and poisonings. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal injuries in the United States, (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal injuries over time, (3) identify emerging injury problems, (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems, and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data will be made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. Also, annually, the final edited data are released as public use data files for use by other public health professionals and researchers. NEISS-AIP data on nonfatal injuries were collected from January through December each year except the year 2000 when data were collected from July through December (ICPSR 3582).
NEISS AIP is providing data on approximately over 500,000 cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, gender, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, major categories of external cause of injury (e.g., motor vehicle, falls, cut/pierce, poisoning, fire/burn) and of intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, intentional self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding rules and guidelines. NEISS has been managed and operated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all United States residents. These product-related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1990, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS data on a variety of injury-related topics, such as in-line skating, firearms, BB and pellet guns, bicycles, boat propellers, personal water craft, and playground injuries; and (3) to address common concerns. CPSC also uses NEISS to collect data on work-related injuries for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. In 1997, the interagency agreement was modified to conduct the three-month NEISS All Injury Pilot Study at 21 NEISS hospitals (see Quinlan KP, Thompson MP, Annest JL, et al. Expanding the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to Monitor All Nonfatal Injuries Treated in US Hospital Emergency Departments. Annals Emerg. Med. 1999;34:637-643.) This study demonstrated the feasibility of expanding NEISS to collect data on all injuries. National estimates based on this study indicated product-related injuries that fall into CPSC's jurisdiction accounted for approximately 50 percent of injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The study also indicated that NEISS is a cost-effective system for capturing data on all injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP provides an excellent data source for monitoring national estimates of nonfatal injuries over time. Analysis and dissemination of these surveillance data through the ICPSR, and Internet publications will help support NCIPC's mission of reducing all types and causes of injuries in the United States, as well as assist other federal agencies with responsibilities for injury prevention and control.
Curated
Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3319)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Omaha, Klameth Falls, San Diego, United States, Everett, California, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes, researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett, Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha, Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income, and level of education.
Curated
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, 2001 (ICPSR 3817)
Released/updated on: 2003-11-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-01
Beginning in July 2000, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) expanded the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to collect data on all types and causes of injuries treated in a representative sample of United States hospitals with emergency departments (EDs). This system is called the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS AIP).
The NEISS AIP is designed to provide national incidence estimates of all types and external causes of nonfatal injuries and poisonings treated in United States hospital EDs. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer-related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all injuries and poisonings. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal injuries in the United States, (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal injuries over time, (3) identify emerging injury problems, (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems, and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data are made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. Also, the final edited data are released annually as a public use data file for use by other public health professionals and researchers. NEISS-AIP data on nonfatal injuries were collected from January through December each year except the year 2000 when data were collected from July through December (ICPSR 3582).
NEISS AIP is providing data on approximately over 500,000 cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, gender, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, major categories of external cause of injury (e.g., motor vehicle, falls, cut/pierce, poisoning, fire/burn) and of intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, intentional self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding rules and guidelines. NEISS has been managed and operated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all United States residents. These product-related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1990, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS data on a variety of injury-related topics, such as in-line skating, firearms, BB and pellet guns, bicycles, boat propellers, personal water craft, and playground injuries; and (3) to address common concerns. CPSC also uses NEISS to collect data on work-related injuries for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. In 1997, the interagency agreement was modified to conduct the three-month NEISS All Injury Pilot Study at 21 NEISS hospitals (see Quinlan KP, Thompson MP, Annest JL, et al. Expanding the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to Monitor All Nonfatal Injuries Treated in US Hospital Emergency Departments. Annals Emerg. Med. 1999;34:637-643.) This study demonstrated the feasibility of expanding NEISS to collect data on all injuries. National estimates based on this study indicated product-related injuries that fall into CPSC's jurisdiction accounted for approximately 50 percent of injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The study also indicated that NEISS is a cost-effective system for capturing data on all injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP provides an excellent data source for monitoring national estimates of nonfatal injuries over time. Analysis and dissemination of these surveillance data through the ICPSR, and Internet publications will help support NCIPC's mission of reducing all types and causes of injuries in the United States, as well as assist other federal agencies with responsibilities for injury prevention and control.
Curated
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, 2002 (ICPSR 4085)
Released/updated on: 2004-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-01
Beginning in July 2000, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in collaboration with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), expanded the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to collect data on all types and causes of injuries treated in a representative sample of United States hospitals with emergency departments (ED). This system is called the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS AIP).
The NEISS AIP is designed to provide national incidence estimates of all types and external causes of nonfatal injuries and poisonings treated in U.S. hospital EDs. Data on injury-related visits are being obtained from a national sample of 66 out of 100 NEISS hospitals, which were selected as a stratified probability sample of hospitals in the United States and its territories with a minimum of six beds and a 24-hour ED. The sample includes separate strata for very large, large, medium, and small hospitals, defined by the number of annual ED visits per hospital, and children's hospitals. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer-related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all injuries and poisonings. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal injuries in the United States, (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal injuries over time, (3) identify emerging injury problems, (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems, and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data will be made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. Also, annually, the final edited data are released as public use data files for use by other public health professionals and researchers. NEISS-AIP data on nonfatal injuries were collected from January through December each year except the year 2000 when data were collected from July through December (ICPSR 3582).
NEISS AIP is providing data on approximately over 500,000 cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, gender, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, major categories of external cause of injury (e.g., motor vehicle, falls, cut/pierce, poisoning, fire/burn) and of intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, intentional self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding rules and guidelines. NEISS has been managed and operated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all United States residents. These product-related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards.
Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1990, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS data on a variety of injury-related topics, such as in-line skating, firearms, BB and pellet guns, bicycles, boat propellers, personal water craft, and playground injuries; and (3) to address common concerns. CPSC also uses NEISS to collect data on work-related injuries for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. In 1997, the interagency agreement was modified to conduct the three-month NEISS All Injury Pilot Study at 21 NEISS hospitals (see Quinlan KP, Thompson MP, Annest JL, et al. Expanding the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to Monitor All Nonfatal Injuries Treated in US Hospital Emergency Departments. Annals Emerg. Med. 1999;34:637-643.) This study demonstrated the feasibility of expanding NEISS to collect data on all injuries. National estimates based on this study indicated product-related injuries that fall into CPSC's jurisdiction accounted for approximately 50 percent of injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The study also indicated that NEISS is a cost-effective system for capturing data on all injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP provides an excellent data source for monitoring national estimates of nonfatal injuries over time. Analysis and dissemination of these surveillance data through the ICPSR, and Internet publications will help support NCIPC's mission of reducing all types and causes of injuries in the United States, as well as assist other federal agencies with responsibilities for injury prevention and control.
Curated
National Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2788)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management practices. The goal was to gather information on "what works for which women" with respect to the program characteristics most related to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs that appeared to be "state of the art" for incarcerated women (Part 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning, allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders, ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of management styles used for managing female offenders, security and other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents' views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders, which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women, how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women, such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate sanctions, and how decisions were made to use intermediate sanctions. Variables dealing with funding and the provision of services to women include the type of private contractor or government agency that provided drug treatment, academic services, and vocational services to women, and the nature of the medical and food services provided to women. Variables unique to Part 2 pertain to the type of offender the jail housed, including whether the jurisdiction had a separate facility for pretrial or sentenced offenders, the total rated capacity of the jail, the average daily population of pretrial females, whether the jail was currently housing state inmates, and the impact on local inmates of being housed with state inmates. Variables concerning classification and assessment focused on the purpose of the classification process for female offenders, whether the classification process was different for male and female offenders, and a description of the process used. Variables specific to Part 3 deal with characteristics of the participants, such as whether program participants were involved in a case management system, the approximate number of women and men participating in the programs, whether offenders were tried and awaiting sentence or were on probation, and the number of hours a week that individuals participated in the program. Program structure variables include whether the program was culture- or gender-specific, restrictions on program participants, and who established the restrictions. Programming strategy variables cover identifying strategies used for meeting the needs of women offenders with short sentences, strategies for women with long sentences, and what stood in the way of greater use of intermediate sanctions. Part 4 contains variables on the size of the mental health program/unit, including the number of beds in the mental health unit, the number of beds set aside for different types of diagnoses, and the number of women served annually. Diagnosis variables provide information on who was responsible for screening women for mental health needs, whether women were re-evaluated at any time other than at intake, and the most common mental health problems of women in the unit. Variables on running the program include whether the program/unit worked with private or public hospitals, the factors that hindered coordination of services among local or state facilities, the types of services affected by budget constraints, and the strategies used to prevent women from harming themselves and others. Staffing variables cover the number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and correctional officers that worked in the mental health unit. Demographic variables were similar for all four data files. These include the institution level, the type of respondent interviewed, respondents' gender and educational background, and the number of years they had been in their positions, were employed in corrections, and had worked in women's facilities.